Fortifications and defensibility

in Prepalatial Crete revisited

Dr. Tomas ALUSIK, PhD., MIfA Czech Centre for Mediterranean Archaeology,

Prague

Introduction

Defensive qualities in prehistoric Crete

always had a very important role – a lot of

FN/EM I, EM-MM, LM III defensible sites

The aims of this paper:

– to present all possible evidence of the means of

defence in PreP period

– to try to re-identify possible remains of defensive

architecture in some sites

– to understand the problematic of PreP defensive

architecture and common defensibility in more

complex manner

Thanks a lot to:

Andonis Vasilakis, Norbert

Schlager, Krzysztof

Nowicki, Philip Betancourt,

Melissa Eaby, Ute Günkel-

Maschek, Vance Watrous,

Stella Chryssoulaki &

Leonidas Vokotopoulos

Prepalatial defensive architecture only in a limited number of sites?

In the cases of non-existing fortifications the

inhabitants had to rely on a different complex

defence measures – good escape routes and

refuge area

Possible escape routes and refuge areas can be

well defined in some PreP sites

No escape routes and refuge areas – need to

build enclosure walls

The existence or absence of good escape route

and refuge area is fundamentally interrelated with

the appearance of defensive architecture

Methodology

22 sites were divided to two groups/types

Criteria for choosing of these sites:

– a single-period site; or multi-period site in

cases where the Prepalatial phase (including

architecture) is well distinguishable or dominant

and/or

– site with at least several buildings with the

characteristics of a permanent settlement, or

with surface finds that are distributed on the

area of at least several dozens meters in

diameter

Agia Fotia Koumasa Korakies

Agios Kyrillos Lasaia

Apesokari Vigla Lendas Anginaropapouro

Aphrodite’s Kephali Livari Kastrokephalaki

Aspra Charakia Megali Skini Odygitrias

Chamazi Miamou

Christos Volakas Myrtos Fournou Korifi

Doukiania Nophigia Troulli

Kalogrias Korphali Porti

Kalyviani Viglia Trypiti Adami Korphali

Kalyvomouri Zakrou Vasiliki

The local topography and the wider topographic context of all these 22 sites were investigated by personal observations and investigations within the last two years + Google Earth

Sites of Type I Situated in a saddle between peaks or on

the plateau of some mountain ridge -

possible to go directly and relatively easily

to higher elevations such as a naturally

protected places (refuge area); not

necessary to build fortifications

Agios Kyrillos, Apesokari Vigla, Aspra

Charakia, Christos Volakas, Kalogrias

Korfali, Kalyvomouri Zakrou, Lasaia,

Livari Kastrokefalaki, Miamou, Nophigia

Troulli, Vasiliki

Sites of Type II Built in defensible locations, but no safe escape routes - the only way to leave the residential area was to walk down the hill to a valley or a saddle; no functioning escape routes - fortifications necessary

Agia Fotia, Aphrodite‘s Kephali, Chamaizi, Doukiania, Kalyviani Viglia, Koumasa Korakies, Lendas Anginaropapouro, Megali Skini Odygitrias, Myrtos Fournou Korifi, Porti, Trypiti Adami Korfali

Livari Kastrokefalaki (Type I) (FN-)EM I-II; on a gentle slope with a distinct rocky tower which is at the foot of the mountainous ridge of Katharades – below extensive FN acropolis that could be used as refuge area

Katharades FN acropolis

Kastrokefalaki

Katharades FN acropolis

Kastrokefalaki

Miamou (Type I)

on the northernmost promontory of the mountain ridge of Korakies; behind the settlement the crest rises up - an ideal escape route to the top (refuge area)

Lendas Anginaropapouro (Type II)

on the top of a low hill

Anginaropapouro, to the north

of the rocky cape of Liontari

(Kefali)

remains of a 0.8 m wide

enclosure wall on the southern

part of the top plateau

Aphrodite‘s Kephali (Type II)

Kephali mountain, Ierapetra

Isthmus; remains of house

enclosed by a fortification wall;

signal fire area; EM I

Chamaizi (Type II)

the external wall of the complex (c. 21 x 15 m) with only two entrances defined the inhabited area and served as a fortification; MM IA

Conclusions I - topography Defence had an important role in choosing location besides economic reasons

All the sites in question show the same topographic signs - not easily accessible locations

The majority of them are located on the last promontory of some mountain crest or ridge and are separated from the next promontory by a valley or a pronounced saddle

Agia Fotia, Kalyviani Viglia and Porti are located on one of a few hills in a long lowland area; an easy access to the habitation area is usually just from one side through a connecting crest or a saddle; other sides are steep and often rocky cliffs

Conclusions II – enclosure walls in Type II sites

1) An external wall built on the rim of the settlement, independent of other buildings; more difficult to construct, but more secure

Porti, Agia Fotia, Lendas and Megali Skini

2) External walls of architectural complex or of the structures built within the habitation area establish the border of the built-up area that function as fortification; less complicated from the architectonic point of view, but more risky

Trypiti, Chamaizi, Koumasa, Aphrodites Kephali, Myrtos Fournou Korifi, Agia Fotia; Christos (?)

General conclusions Ability to defend or the military capacity to fend against an organized invasion was not very advanced; fortifications of this type were only able to defend against some local skirmish or occasional raids of robbers

The overall situation during the Prepalatial period was not so dangerous as before; the situation did not require establishing settlements in non-accessible spots or a rigorous protection by external enclosure walls

All evidence seems to indicate that with more favourable conditions inhabitants relied on a more complex defence system

The defensive architecture did not play such an important role any more; the local topography with possible escape routes and a possible refuge area was equally, or even more important

Thank you for your

attention.